1) no it's not "two dimensional". It's three atoms thick so it would have to have no width or no length to be considered 2d. 

ScienceShot: TwoDimensional Glass  ScienceNOW 

1) no it's not "two dimensional". It's three atoms thick so it would have to have no width or no length to be considered 2d. 

Previously PhilosopherStoned
Yeah, I don't like that term either. But it's being used a lot in science journalism now. Not sure if the actual scientists use it, though. Coz they should know that even 1 atom has form. 

I wish we could tell that glass theorist that his theory was pretty darn accurate. 

IKR.... 

Well, quantum mechanics has essentially been finished for approaching a century. Once you know the equations governing something it's unsurprising that you can use them to correctly predict novel phenomena. Indeed the fact that you can do this is one of the main reasons that science is extremely important on a practical level. 

Is it really true that quantum mechanics is complete? I suppose reconciling QM and GR is the only thing left to do. Also are you talking about the E8 model? As far as I knew supersymmetry has not been verified yet, I would be surprised if nature was really as symmetrical as the standard model predicts. 

E8 is absolutely wrong. Look it up. It predicts particles that don't exist and doesn't predict particles that do. 

Previously PhilosopherStoned
I don't know enough math to understand the E8 model. Likewise the standard model predicts the existence of antiparticles, gravitons and the infamous higgs; all of which have not yet been verified. Also I thought Bell's theorem still presented unsolved problems in QM? I'm in my first year of college, I haven't taken a QM class yet, so I only possess a cocktail knowledge of physics; I don't understand the mathematical models like you do. Of course if you have the time, I would like to hear about the details (also articles, books, lectures, etc. would suffice as well). 

What now? 

Last edited by Xei; 02102012 at 04:54 AM.
This is a good point, I didn't take the existence of dark matter into account. We cannot directly observe dark matter but we can observe the affect its mass has on other astronomical objects and light through its gravitational pull. I suppose it is possible that the antiparticles have an affect on the physical universe that we are not aware of at the present moment. 

If you say so. I'd really rather discuss the thread instead of myself. Considering I referred to Feynman's achievements in the context of stormcrow's questions a few posts later this doesn't seem very sensible, but whatever. 

I never said it was more of an achievement, I just said that it was surprising. It's quite possible that the work that Feynman did was a more impressive intellectual achievement, it's just that once he had done the mathematics, it was not amazing that reality corresponded to it, because the axioms of that mathematics are chosen precisely because they directly correspond to the real world. With particle physics it is quite different, they are seeing a pattern and extrapolating very greatly from in on the basis of the aesthetic form of the mathematics itself, rather than anything observed. 

It's true that Dirac was greatly motivated by finding beauty and simplicity in equations that described nature. What came as a surprise was that using matrices to describe the total energy of a mass was the only way to do it. It just happened that the matrices had cool looking symmetries implying the antimatter. 



Antimatter is definitely verified. For example the positron is an electron with a positive charge. Gravitons aren't part of the standard model I don't think. They are definitely part of an attempt to treat gravity as a quantum field. This is fundamentally wrong with respect to general relativity. Gravity is there viewed as just the curvature of space. This requires one to deal with coordinates coming from differentiable transformations of the space into itself. Quantum field theories all work on essentially a flat, static spacetime. Or a torus if you just want to play with the math. 

Last edited by PhilosopherStoned; 02102012 at 09:35 PM.
Previously PhilosopherStoned
Ok, it seems we were just thinking about it differently. Since you're well accustomed to mathematics, probably. 

43:00 observe. 

48:16  I know that pub well. 

Bookmarks